posted 24 June 2001 12:03 AM
I thought it was the worst episode of the year!

If what you're asking us is, are there some intelligent right-wingers, the answer is yes. Andrew Coyne, Robert Fulford and Jonathan Kay (except that Jonathan Kay doesn't have the vaguest clue about what the anti-globalization movement is about).

But generally speaking, I have a hard time understanding this right-wing stupidity, and I read the National Post every day. So I can't even play this game!

Sean S.MontrealInstead of gambling on the eternal impossibility of the revolution, why not think that a new type of revolution is becoming possible? - French philosopher Gilles Deleuze

I believe that tax cuts for wealthy entrepreneurs will be the most efficient investment vehicle for today's economy. Tax cuts for these people will stimulate savings, investment, and the ongoing usage of venture capital to finance job creation in the high-tech sector of our economy.

We must also deregulate the high-tech sector, to promote job flexibility and remove labor market rigidities. In this spirit, it is worth noting that the government of British Columbia has aided this in 1997 by removing restrictions on incurring overtime so that high-tech workers can continue to work hard and contribute to corporate cultures that promote the creation of technologically innovative software products.

*steps away from podium, to stunned looks of rabble-rousers*

Ok, gimme a rating!

From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

stile
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 659

posted 24 June 2001 12:59 AM
Hmmmm, I rate that a "pas mal."

Shall I give it a go?

*steps into character*

The truth is, social programs go against the law of nature and allow the weakest to survive.

Thus a socialist society ceases to evolve and degenerates into a third world nation where everyone has sunk down to the lowest common denominator.

Only in a free market economy can people thrive and contribute to the advancement of civilization.

Do we want to live in a world of stagnant socialism where we must clip the wings of our children and surrender our freedom to the state?

posted 24 June 2001 01:10 AM
OK, Time to give drc a run for his money:

The problem with you leftists is that you're well-intentioned but you don't understand the realities of the world. Trying to create a utopia through handouts, which make a culture of dependency, or through social engineering projects, has unforeseen consequences which usually make the situation worse. Whenever we've seen this sort of utopian project tried, the result has always been suffering -- look at the Soviet Union. The only efficient way to allocate resources is the market, and the less you interfere with it the better

Nowhere are the bad effects of leftists' good intentions clearer than in the anti-globalization movement. A few special interests and flat-earthers want to protect their overpaid jobs at home, the main result of which is to keep millions of people in the developing world poor. But free trade is a win-win scenario for everyone. We get lower prices and greater choice, and developing countries get the investment they need to lift them out of poverty -- which is more than all your bleeding-heart handouts have done. The truth is that trade promotes growth. Hong Kong is a classic example. It's got the freest economy in the world, and look how it has prospered relative to its neighbours.

Capitalism of course has its losers, but so does socialism. The point is that even if there is inequality in capitalism, the worst off are always better off than they would have been in a socialist economy. And if our economic system was so bad, why would people be clamoring to come here from all over the world?

posted 24 June 2001 01:11 AM
*holds up "9" on a card a la an Olympic Judge*
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 24 June 2001 02:02 AM
I'm in a few of those "canadian politics" yahoo groups, so I hear (see, actually) this everyday! It's enough to make anyone else quit the group, or stop checking their e-mail. Luckily, i like to argue, and deflating egos can become a fun past time. The thing to remember is to always make sure you don't become egotistical as a result, and keep ego in check, etc. Also, you can't be too viscious, otherwise the moderator kicks you out and...

If any of you want/can, join the yahoo group called canadian_politics, or Politics_Canada. The later has too many tories for my liking, while the former has more leftists, and only about 17 members. It's a lot of fun though, and this type of thing is really good for learning about the "enemy", though I don't consider them enemies, just mislead This isn't considered spamming is it? I hope no one got that impression! IGNORE THE ENTIRE 2ND PARAGRAPH!!!!

posted 24 June 2001 10:01 AM
Look, enough of this treating people as "equals". This egalitarian dream of the left is an aboration of nature.

Doesn't that come across evidentially in books like "The Bell Curve", or the painstaking and careful research of Phillip Rushton?

You know, if workers want "input" in the workplace, then they could go to school, get management jobs and have all the input they want, like smart people have. After all, we've all had the same opportunities; don't blame others for not having what it takes.

The money should be staying with the people who have the best intellects. That way, it gets put to the most efficient use. And, there is nothing like the laisez fair mechanism to get that money into the best, most ablest hands. That's why it's called laisez fair.

Damn, you scared the shit out of me! Literally. I read your post and I didn't even see your name next to it and I was THAT close to blasting off a blistering reply (that "painstaking work of Philippe Rushton" bit ) when I realized what the thread was, and your handle.

Now I'm gonna have to come up with a good one

From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 24 June 2001 10:54 AM
I would have thought the use of "evidentially" a dead give away. It's multisyllabic, and as such not used by the right.

posted 24 June 2001 11:07 AM
Ok, this is my second time at-bat. Let's roll.

Unemployed people have nothing to blame but themselves, since they should be able to obtain new jobs easily if they have the correct skills. If they don't, why, anyone can go back to school.

Interest rates must remain high to counter inflationary pressures, and to retain the incentive to save, which will ensure that our wealthy entrepreneurs create the jobs necessary to employ these people who would otherwise be tempted to take advantage of our generous unemployment compensation system.

From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 24 June 2001 11:27 AM
And while we're at it, could someone turn down the volume on the left-wing media, especially the CBC? Anyone else tired of the parade of kooks and whiners, the way they hype every namby-pamby politically correct special-interest group going? Like the nurses, for instance -- everyone knows nurses are like grape-pickers: they come, they go; you run low and you just go out and train a few more fast, or find a few in the Philippines who're gonna be grateful for a change, grateful to you for giving them a chance at freedom and the Canadian way.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 24 June 2001 11:54 AM
*OK, gotta defend my honour*

Tommy, thanks for that gush of refreshing honesty. Sometimes I wonder, with these politically correct thought police controlling the liberal media, if we really live in a free country anymore. You give me hope, Tommy.

You've called a spade a spade. But I think, to be fair, Tommy, we've got to believe in equality of opportunity. Give everyone the chance to fulfill their potential, and the market will find the diamonds in the dust. But if some people want to be bitter about working at McDonalds, let them. They deserve their fate. When I was young we called that opportunity, and we were grateful for it. That's where dreams began.

We're living in an age of unparallelled affluence that's been created by the great ideas of people like you, Tommy. This is an age where the true creative genius of capitalism is more obvious than ever. We've freed people from welfare, unemployment is at its lowest -- I just don't get it, why these leftists want to take us back to the days of Tax and Spend. It just doesn't work -- remember stagflation? What does it take to convince these leftists? Another depression?

Oh and while we're at it. Did you see the news? City council has given a $5000 grant for -- get this -- an art installation by a lesbian art collective. Your hard-earned tax dollars at work! Where will it end? Funding pedophile movies? It's really sad to see how our culture has declined at the hands of liberal elites who have no respect for what this country stands for.

posted 24 June 2001 06:19 PM
Damn! You guys (and girl) are good. These are some frighteningly sound arguments. How the hell do you counter arguments like these??

*steps into character*

The arrogance of the green party is truly unprecedented. They assert that "humans are steadfastly destroying life on this planet."

As if we had all somehow gained the power of the antichrist and are now in the process of overriding the very forces of nature.

Get real people. The laws of nature always have been and always will be the ultimate arbiter of life on this planet.

And even if we do alter the environment somewhat, we will simply invent new technologies to adapt to future needs.

In fact, this presents all kinds of new economic possibilities and job creation potential. Air filters, water filters and/or bottled water, a whole new auto-market, power generation, and the list goes on.

Environmental change should be viewed as an exciting new challenge and venue for technological advancement.

posted 24 June 2001 11:07 PM
I agree with all of you. And don't even get me started about all those lefty-whiners with entitlement attitudes, who think that everyone else should grease their way to the top, or give them a handout if they don't "feel like" working hard enough to do it on their own.

When I was a kid, we just started this whole feel good, self-esteem building, don't-make-it-too-hard-or-the-poor-dears-will-get-their-feelings-hurt type of crap at school. They did "whole reading" instead of phonics, "new math" instead of drills, and this touchy-feely psychological bullshit in place of the basics: math, science, English, history, and geography. And what did it get us? A whole generation of whiny little pissants with entitlement attitudes wondering why they can't get a job.

Well let me tell you why you can't get a job. It's because your teachers thought your feelings were "too delicate" for an F when you deserved to fail. It's because your parents didn't spank you enough and teach you some discipline and manners. It's because you're "too good" to take that fast food job that might be a step up the ladder to something better, so instead you sit home watching soap operas and complaining because your welfare or pogey cheque isn't high enough. It's because of that stupid haircut (or lack of haircut if you're a guy), piercings, and clothing you wear - who the hell wants to hire a freak?

Let me tell you about MY life. I never had it easy. I was your typical loser in high school - I goofed off, got low marks, and ended up dropping out before I graduated. Do you think I went on welfare? Damn right I didn't! I got a minimum wage job at a bakery, and I supported myself on that job. I never asked for government handouts! Once I realized that minimum wage sucks, I went to night school to get computer skills. Oh yeah, baby, I worked day and night to get an education. I walked 3 miles back and forth to school because I couldn't afford a bus ticket - uphill both ways!! Then once I got some computer skills I worked as a secretary. See how I worked my way up to something better? But I had to work hard. Once I realized that all the people who had me for a secretary had university degrees and that was the only way those jobs would be open to me, I decided to go to university.

And now I'm doing it all myself - well, with the help of OSAP. But I'll be paying that all back, unlike some of those ungrateful little so-and-so's who default on THEIR loans - they should all be thrown in JAIL - I don't give a damn if they can't find work after university - pay it back on minimum wage if you have to! If I can work my way out of the gutter than ANYONE can!! All it takes is a work ethic, something sadly lacking in the young people of today!

* * *

There. Beat THAT. I feel creepy all over after having written that. Don't be reading that at my funeral.

From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 24 June 2001 11:44 PM
And, lets not forget that it's not just a liberal media at the CBC, it's a liberal humanist media.

This nation was founded on Judaeo-Christian principles, and as soon as we return to these principles, we'll remember to stop giving the Jews credit and be able start kicking them around like we used to do back in those founding days.

Hitler was a humanist, you know. and this proves how evil the whole philosophy is. Perhaps one day we'll have a free hand to deal with these heretics properly. It's their impiety that lies at the root of all evils today. How can we, as good Christians, sit idle when so many people in this nation are not only having sex, but enjoying it too?

We have to return to the Christian principles that founded this nation; employees realizing that their employer ruled by divine right as it says in the good book. And don't forget about the parable of the talents. Jesus said it's not enough just to preserve the investment of your employer, you have to make it grow to be a good Christian.

The Godless amoung us whose impiety is surely punished in this life with poverty have got to learn to trust in the Lord, that God does not give burdens to people that they cannot bear. That's why the suicide rate is so low, and the psycho wards are so empty.

The sooner people accept Jesus as their Saviour, the sooner God will favour them with material wealth.

posted 25 June 2001 12:05 AM
Tommy once again you've shown you're a man of courage. You're not afraid to speak the truth about what's happening to our world. You too, Michelle. You've got my vote over any of those loud-mouth, so-called feminists any day of the week. They can learn something about real self-respect from you.

You know what really bugs me about liberals? They're so superior. They know better than you. A guy works hard all his life to put bread on the table and make a better life for his family, and he wants to enjoy the simple pleasures of life, to be a good man, a Christian. And you know what liberal elites tell him? That he doesn't know anything, that he's a bad man. He's responsible for everything that goes wrong in this world. Some bush war in Africa -- ask the hard-working American to pay for cleaning up the mess. Some psycho shoots a bunch of kids up, you think the liberals blame the psycho -- no, they're out there demonstrating. Save the murderers, they're an endangered species! Blame the hard-working American, he's an oppressor! It's all his fault. He can't do anything right. He's sexist, racist, he's a homophobe.

Well you know what? Maybe it's time for people with problems to take responsibility for their lives and stop trying to pin it on the people who built this country. Am I right or what?

And what do the liberal know-it-alls have to offer? What is their paradise like? Cowdung smeared on the Virgin Mary. That's right. They'll go out and defend your right to smear manure on the Mother of God. Sure, they'll tolerate anything, as long as you're not a white, Christian, family man. Anything goes. Well that's not the America I want to live in ladies and gentleman. And so I want to ask you, you good people, to join me in telling the liberal elites what they can do with their contempt for the average American. Because we're not going to take it anymore.

quote:The sooner people accept Jesus as their Saviour, the sooner God will favour them with material wealth.

Thanks for reminding me! That's another reason why our schools are turning out such uneducated little egotists - because they took the Lord's Prayer out of the schools! Now those left-wing educators are promoting the homosexual agenda to 10 year-olds and teaching them that third trimester abortions are the solution to the world's problems! They're showing them how to put condoms on bananas (all you need is some whipped cream for some REAL kinky fun) instead of teaching them what will really happen to their eternal soul if they engage in premarital sex.

As a parent of a young child who will be entering the public school system in a couple of years, I am concerned that my son will be influenced for evil. Therefore, I have decided to donate heavily to Dr. Laura, Dr. Dobson and Focus on the Family, and to Stockwell Day's riding association in order to do my part in supporting the battle against immorality and bad influences on children in our school system and society at large.

From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 25 June 2001 12:26 AM
And, you know why Liberal elites are like that? They think too much. That's the problem! You can't solve problems by thinking about them to every detail. At some point, preferably after about 15 seconds of good hard dwelling, the mind must be shut down and a conclusion reached, and action taken.

-----

Aside: You know, except where I stepped into a bit of satire, like the crack about the kicking around of the Jews, (we all know it's true, but it's never said by those who use the "Judaeo-Christian" phrase) all those arguments are just regurgitations from columnists I have read. Yes, the word "heretic" and "impiety" has been thrown around, and I've seen "The Bell Curve" and the ideas of Phillpe Rushton deffended, if not lauded, by right wing columnists at one time or another. Same with the thinking too much rant.

Sure, I undressed it a little, but I've seen all those basic arguments presented at one time or another.

posted 25 June 2001 12:42 AM
You know it's welfare cheque day when you go to the beer store and it's really busy with all these trailer-trash people ordering 2-4s. It just burns me that the government takes the money that I earned through my hard work to pay for these freeloading scum to get drunk! They should all be sent out in bright orange jumpsuits to pick up trash in the park - yeah, that's it!
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged

verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 25 June 2001 12:42 AM
Well now... these here pinkos just have too much time on their soft little hands! My papa always used to say "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" That's what these pinkos are all about -- fixing what ain't broke in the first place! If they'd just get off their lily-white arses (pardon my French) and do a honest day's work, they'd see that elbow-grease is all the lubrication the world needs!
From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 June 2001 12:43 AM
Seriously...

I know what you mean, Tommy. I was doing a search today (just a coincidence, I was surfing), looking for criticism of Dr. Dobson and Focus on the Family. I've read several of his books and wanted to see what people were saying about them (I know what I think).

If you can believe it, I found this link to an open letter by someone who thought Dr. Dobson was too LIBERAL. Geez, you gotta wonder.

From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

hst
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 844

posted 25 June 2001 12:43 AM
I think that for any progressive not to know and understand the capitalist mind and its history that person is not going to help advance the cause of socialism. Far to often we only talk to ourselves, read each others books or articles and navel gaze. As my father-in-law once said"To be a fascist is an easy thing. You put on a brown shirt and beat up people.To be a progressive you must study and think"

We should create leftist book clubs or discussion groups to read, understand and critique the bastards. Not simply dismiss them as idiots.

Joseph Kennedy had both John and Robert study Capital to understand the enemy. While their bones rot in hell let us understand them and their pack.

Until we can quote them chapter and verse we will not be able to properly fight them.

Still, I think a point must be taken that if we leftists are to claim the moral high ground of open-mindedness, we have to be willing to consider the arguments put forth by those on the right, as well as understand the chain of reasoning and the assumptions that underlie the way they think.

I would say that all of us, with varying degrees of effectiveness, can at least mimic the arguments presented by the right, but how many of us would be able to sit down and outline the chain of thought that leads to the conclusions involved?

From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 25 June 2001 02:13 AM
DrC, I'm not sure that either leftists or rightists, for the most part, arrive at their views rationally. A lot of it depends on our moral formation. I would spin this in a way that is positive to most leftists -- a greater sense of sympathy and a greater imagination of what it's like to lead different lives, but it's possible to spin it favourably to right-wingers too.

How did I arrive at my views? I feel I can defend them rationally, but I'm not sure I arrived at them rationally. Can I understand how a very articulate right-winger would defend their views? I think I can, at least if we're talking about the conservatism of a Leo Strauss or the market-liberalism of a Friedrich Hayek.

It's in a way disconcerting how few people change their minds.

John Gray is an interesting case, he has flip-flopped a few times. There is a really entertaining article at Lingua Franca on former conservatives like Mr. Gray:

The collapse of the Soviet Union also forced Gray to question his free-market faith. Until 1989, Gray says, it made sense to think of the state as "the principal enemy of well-being," which was the attitude within "the admittedly hothouse atmosphere of the right-wing think thanks." But after the Soviet empire fell, the former Yugoslavia spiraled into genocidal civil war, and Western free-marketeers applied shock therapy to formerly communist countries with disastrous results, Gray came to think that the state was a necessary evil, perhaps even a positive good. It was the only force that could prevent societies from sliding into total chaos, extreme inequality, and poverty.

But there is a deeper reason for Gray's turn: By itself, the market could not sustain his affections. Without the Soviet Union and the welfare state as diverting symbols of Enlightenment rationalism, Gray could no longer believe in the market as he once had. The market, he now had to admit, sponsors a "cult of reason and efficiency." It "snaps the threads of memory and scatters local knowledge." He used to think that the free market arose spontaneously and that state control of the economy was unnatural. But watching Jeffrey Sachs and the International Monetary Fund in Russia, he could not help but see the free market as "a product of artifice, design and political coercion." It had to be created, often with the aid of ruthless state power. Today, he argues that Thatcher built the free market by crushing trade unions, hollowing out the Conservative Party, and disabling Parliament. She "set British society on a forced march into late modernity." Gray believes that "Marxism-Leninism and free-market economic rationalism have much in common." Both, he writes, "exhibit scant sympathy for the casualties of economic progress." There is only one difference: Communism is dead.

[...]

William F. Buckley Jr. says, "The trouble with the emphasis in conservatism on the market is that it becomes rather boring. You hear it once, you master the idea. The notion of devoting your life to it is horrifying if only because it's so repetitious. It's like sex." Kristol adds, "American conservatism lacks for political imagination. It's so influenced by business culture and by business modes of thinking that it lacks any political imagination, which has always been, I have to say, a property of the left." He goes on, "If you read Marx, you'd learn what a political imagination could do."

[...]

Except, it turns out, for William F. Buckley Jr., the original bad boy of the American right. At the end of our interview, I ask Buckley to imagine a younger version of himself, an aspiring political enfant terrible graduating from college in 2000, bringing to today's political world the same insurgent spirit that Buckley brought to his. What kind of politics would this youthful Buckley embrace? "I'd be a socialist," he replies. "A Mike Harrington socialist." He pauses. "I'd even say a communist."

posted 25 June 2001 11:30 AM
So first thing this morning, I do what I always do -- turn to my favourite columnist, Andrew Coyne ... And what do I find?

quote: The people the fees are most likely to deter are, after all, those on very low incomes. Yet the same group -- poor, often homeless and/or frequent drug users -- is also the most likely to be ill. So the people most likely to be discouraged from seeking care are the people most likely to be in need of care.

Sheesh! My day is ruined! In the course of arguing that user fees for medicare won't actually save enough money (ok, if Andrew's worked this out, I'm always ready to listen -- snip snip snip anywhere we can, y'know), our boy tosses in this gem! What is he thinking? Why can't he see that we want these guys to be "discouraged" (heh heh, I love those euphemisms) from seeking medical care, precisely these guys??!! Let them die and be done with it, and decrease the surplus population, I say! (Or did someone else say that?)

So then I come back to this thread, looking for a little comfort and fellow-feeling, eh, and what do I find? You guys have gone all soft on me! Taste, you're talking! Capitalism ain't refayned enough for your delicate li'l sensibilities! Businessmen are boring! Sheesh!

posted 25 June 2001 11:38 AM
I know what you mean, Skdadl. This thread has really deteriorated into left-wing propaganda.

To get back on track, I think you're right. Those lazy, low class people can't afford user fees for health care? Well guess what? That's called "thinning the herd", and we're not doing them any favours by prolonging their miserable existence.

From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 25 June 2001 01:54 PM
You're all a bunch of Commie Pinko's!!!!! Using your big fancy mumbo jumbo, "elites" this, and "liberal" that. They're called fat cats, and commies or Pinkos! As for the Hebes, at least their aren't as much of 'em, but don't get me started on these siki, stone hugging heretics! "there is no god but allah", bull shit! sure their is! and his name is GOD! And of course those pinkos always have to take the sides of these damn hethen practitioners of the black arts! When a good Christian tries show a little pride by decorating their house, or by passing out literature, they get all up in arms about religious freedom! oh but when those damn Indians where their turbans, and the funny coloured clothes, "oh, they're just following their religion, that's okay". Well Jesus said it was my duty to get everyone to follow him to the path of divinity and truth, so why can't I be allowed to get those devil worshipers to convert? And gun control, BAH!!!! If we don't have our guns, how are we supposed to protect our streets from those fag marches of shame?! And they always want to use MY tax dollars, to give handouts to those greedy do-nothing-know-nothings! If you want to be succesful in life, it's simple. you work hard, you manage your money, and you get rich, you teach your children (of course first the ten commandments) to work hard, manage their money, and get rich. Is that so hard?!?! And they're always after your individual watchamacallits, rights, thats it! These damn radicals are always talkin' about the community or the common good, or society. Well that's just pinko talk for saying "come on over to Jo Stalin, so we can sacrafice your good virgins!". Why can't they see that rights are called that because they're from the right wing, and the right wing is called right because they are right!

And the unions! They're always out their fighting about something or other, butter health care, education, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine! Get yourselves an education at Peonix U and then get a good job ys' lazy bums! If they had their way, when you got a job, you'd be employin' the boss, 'cause he's always givin' you so many fringe benefits, like health insurance, or "workers comp". And the women! don't get me started on the women! And the tree huggers! Don't get me started on them either...

posted 25 June 2001 02:44 PM
Women and tree huggers aside, let's talk about tax cuts. Are the commies so blinded by their ideology that they don't see that tax cuts are the best way to increase government revenue? If you cut taxes for the rich, they'll spend more money, and if they spend more money, the money they spend will go to all those people making the stuff they buy, and everyone is happy. It's those long haired hippies who don't want to work who have the problems, and i say, good! You should have money problems you jackass! you already had trouble upstairs, it was only a matter of time before it came back in your wallet, or purse, if you're a fag.

All a sensible person has to do is read Darwin. He says that whatever we do, is just nature, so it's natural that some people would loose out, that's nature, that's natural selection. Who are we to intervene with gods duty to pick and choose who are the strong and who are the weak?! Now Mike Harris, there's a good man. Giving those unions, and the pinko teachers, and the damn frogs what they deserve! A swift kick in the you-know-where. But the damn CBC had to step in, and make him into a demon! health care, education, whine, whine, whine!. The best thing the Ontario Government ever did was privatize TVO, and too bad the feds can't take a hint and do the same to Mr. Mansbridge!

Those pinkos just don't understand. And as for privatization, why don't they see it works?! When everything is privately owned, everyone is competing for business, so they lower their prices, and everyone is happy! But noooooooooo!, the lefties want big brother to come in and do everything!

And back to good ol' Mike, the best thing he ever did was put those inbred Squeegee men where they belong! behind bars!! If they won't just die, where else can we put'em eh?

Another point about gun control, what they should do, is GIVE everyone a gun! Then everyone will take care of themselves, like it should be!

And all this government reform, mumbo jumbo, OOOOOooooooOOOOHHHH! don't get me started! Just give the provinces what they deserve! natural resources, health care, infrastructure, etc. no need for this PR shit! elections happen on election day, so you can tell Judy whatserface to take a long march back to Moscow! Why don't we have it like the Americans? That electoral college doesn't look like such a bad thing, since it brought in a man of such high stature, Mr. George Bush Jr. And these Pinko canucks take the red flag thing a bit too literally! They don't even let us elect our judges! if we should reform anything about the government, it should be getting rid of these god damned transfer payments! The feds are once again steeling hard earned money from the good people of Alberta, Ontario, and BC, and giving it to those lazy provinces, like Nova Scotia, or Newfoundland, or Manitoba!

*no disrepect to Judy Rebick at all, whatsoever. I think we'd all be a lot better off if she were leader of the next NDP after implementation of NPI! I heard she doesn't like the NDP as it is, so that's why I went all specific *

posted 25 June 2001 03:40 PM
The fact is that left-wingers and socialist like to live in a fantasy land where everyone will be happy. But the fact is the world doesn't work like that...COMMUNISM FAILED. Competition breeds peace, prosperity and opportunity, and if those who fail to achieve this cry about not getting into the game, it is their own fault. We do not need government to be the big brother of the poor. We need jobs, jobs and more jobs. We need tax cuts to create those jobs. We need investments in the internet so that all Canadians can look at porn. It is very important that we destroy the agenda of the left, so that the Bank of Montreal can continue to make huge profits. Health care, we need private firms so that nurses who are already paid poorly, can be paid less. We need an education system where private busy sets the ciriculum so that students can meet their needs. This is the world I want to live in...a world with 40% poverty and 3% holding 85% of the wealth. Who needs fresh air, when you have air conditioning...who needs trees when you have bg umbrellas...who needs clean water when you have coca-cola.

I am a compassionate conservative, let their be freedom and liberty, and let the shackles of big government be destroyed and let Canadians be freed. [B]

posted 25 June 2001 04:10 PM
What's funny is my whole presence here is to do what you this thread is trying to do.

Your not very good at understanding the right or center right ideology. You rarely even get the motives ritht.

Its more like this. Leftists fight every battle even when the victory in that battle loses the war on the cause.

Ei. You will fight for the rights and dignity of homeless people to not take literacy or substance abuse testing. Regardless of whether this is a good cause. Its victory will resulty in more homeless people.

It goes like that with almost every cause.You will fight for higher wages at the cost of losing jobs.

Your solution to losing the war is always to dump resources that the majority of people do not want to give to fighting the wars. And then blame the people for stupidity or misunderstanding.

The center right actually believes in all of your causes. They just want to fight battles that end up with positive results. And sometimes those battles aren't pretty.

People are sacrificed. If the lefties were on a plane that was about to crash unless its weight was lowered by someone jumping. They would crash it in order to prove that everybody had the right to stay aboard. They would argue that there has to be some way thats less cruel. They would want to build a 1000 foot pillow to cushion the landing. And be mad when no one wants to pay for it. They would argue until it was too late.

Just thought you'd want to hear from your enemy

It's not that we think homeless are lazy, we just want to separate those who truly need help from those who don't. Address literacy, and substance abuse first, with those who are left over, find out what their needs are. Why pay for job training programs to people who can't read or have substance abuse problems? Just to protect their "dignity". They will be far more dignified when those problems are addressed instead of swept under the rug.

ANd to those who think they have the right to be illiterate or substance abusers. Not on my dime.

quote: It's not that we think homeless are lazy, we just want to separate those who truly need help from those who don't. Address literacy, and substance abuse first, with those who are left over, find out what theirneeds are. Why pay for job training programs to people who can't read or have substance abuse problems? Just to protect their "dignity". They will be far more dignified when those problems are addressed insteadof swept under the rug.

posted 25 June 2001 04:36 PM
Well now, that brings up an interesting point... that threatens to drag us off topic (and if so I suggest we take this discussion outside). My question is this: What makes you think that it's "your" dime that's paying for these things. Is that money in your bank account really yours? That spare change in your pocket?
From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 25 June 2001 05:21 PM
VerbaTim, you silly twit. Of course the money's his. He earns exactly what he's worth; I earn exactly what I'm worth -- that's the market, eh? It's a law of nature: every penny of his is his; every penny of mine is mine. It's just like Ronald Reagan, bless him, said about the Panama Canal: We built it; we paid for it; and it's ours!!!!

(VT, you do know I don't mean the twit bit, yes? I for one am interested in this topic, and would love to see you start a new, straight thread on it.)

posted 25 June 2001 06:46 PM
It's really too bad you lefties can't see the forest for the trees. ( which of course belong to lumber companies who provide lots of paid employment!) Why it's just as Markbo says you would spend all your time arguing about everyones right to stay on the plane. Whereas we would simply find the person who made the least money and was therefore, the most expendable and throw the bugger out the door problem solved!

As for this homeless issue no one is paying for my home. I have to go out and work to get everything I want. Self made person I am. I can't think of one instance where anyone gave me a break or contributed to my life in any way. So why should I feel any moral obligation to anyone else.

Single mothers - Harris had the right idea there if they can't find child care and get a job the kids should be taken and put in orphanages. Probably be better off! After all it's my money that has to support these lazy women how much work can raising a child be anyway?

It hasn't even been a century since welfare came into existence, basically around the same time as income tax. Funny how governments felt ok about throwing around money to these layabouts when it wasn't coming out of their pockets.

And lets not forget the ultimate insult of our current federal government who while droning on about the need to eliminate child poverty ( isn't that their parents job?) denies one of our most esteemed citizens - Conrad Black the right to take a title. Surely the granting of this title would have been an inspiration to all Canadian children.

Finally if you want Direct Action look no further than the Harris government. They have directly affected education by showing the populace just what whiners and union patsies teachers are. They have directly affected health care by putting the onus on the individual to pay their own way to get the best service ( I can pay, get out of my way! ) They have directly affected the environment by giving crown lands to mining companies and logging companies - better that than leaving it for squatters and animals. Lets not forget bypassing environmental laws to enable a golf course for people who deserve a little time off! I really don't understand what all the ruckus was about public funds being given to this golf course either after all it's just the deserving getting some of their damned money back!!

So while all you lefties are talking about direct action don't forget we did it first and better!

posted 26 June 2001 04:22 AM
By the way you people are WAY too good at arguing for the other side. I'm starting to get creeped out here.

But on a more serious note, I'm going to take a stab at boiling down some of the arguments above, and extracting common themes.

*Capitalist Fundamentals (meta-theory)*1. Capitalism rests on the foundation that all people are NOT equal.2. Survival of the fittest (in the case of humans) dictates that the BEST: the most cunning, the most intelligent, the prettiest, and the hardest working, will rise to dominance.3. Also, humans can and should have total dominion over nature.4. Self-first: use what you can to gain for yourself. There is no such thing as exploitation, you are only diong what is necessary to survive and thrive.5. Competition is the law of nature, not co-operation.

*Capitalism in practice*Right-wing economics seeks to facilitate the above principles.A free market economy allows the individual to use his/her abilities and natural advantages to rise above other humans.Religion and state should be tools to control the masses.

Why is control necessary? Because a completely free and competitive society approaches a state of nature. Those with less ability may resort to theft/violence to gain for themselves. This would put the dominant ones at risk.

Better to keep the weak nicely fenced in like a flock of sheep to be worked and milked for all they are worth.

The weak may gain courage to rise against their fellow man, but give them a malevolent God to fear, and they are less likely to rebel.

posted 26 June 2001 08:04 AM
For theories of capitalism: what about CAPITAL! Aparently a competition driven economy and the incentive of gained capital would make people do their best. What the capitalists didn't take into equation when factoring this out though, was that some of us may not be as greedy as they, and we may focus more on equality and egalitarianism, not to forget altruism, and similar values.I'm so glad I'm not a capitalist
From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 26 June 2001 08:18 AM
A++ Stile, especially the reading of that one wee doubt that lingers somewhere back in the capitalist's mind about a complete return to law of the jungle. They only win when we all play by one set of rules -- theirs. What if ... what if -- there are other rules, other standards??? Whoo-oooo!
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 26 June 2001 09:22 AM
Markbo is correct, you bleeding heart whiners. The Harris government's attempt to get welfare people and the homeless unaddicted and literate could be viewed as mean spirited, but remember the bill showed how seriously compassionate the intent was by increasing funding to for re-hab, and adult education. Why, to do less would assuredly be just a headline grabbing stab at the powerless in society.

And, don't you guys dare shout "hypocracy! hypocracy!" at us. The law extends to any person on the public dime. That's why the legislature has a breathalizer at the entrance, to ensure M.P.P's are not drunk on company time, so to speak.

And, this shows just how far Mike Harris will go to sacrifice his own personal habbits!!!!!!!

Now, to continue with Markbo's straw man--- er... apt annology of the aircraft crashing, you lefties would probably even cringe if you were all starving in the Andies and were afraid of cutting a hunk of buttock from a parapeligic which he'd not miss, and would fortify the entire cast of survivors.

posted 26 June 2001 02:18 PM
Liam, I just checked out that site - for a few minutes I wasn't sure if it was a satire or a real fundy site. He has links to both religious satire sites AND real sites that are so bigoted that they seem like lampoons (like godhatesfags.com - talk about a scary site).

Did you check out the message boards? They get so much hate mail from all sorts of liberal people who don't recognize that it's satirical.

From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

Ian the second
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 732

posted 27 June 2001 11:07 AM
I don't know if this has already been mentioned, but the best website arguing for capitalism is

capitalism.org

I agree with much of it (really), but the problem is that capitalists themselves don't accept really valid philosophical premises, and usually DO use the kind of shortsighted rhetoric often (not always) used in this thread.

(Capitalists aren't. Same goes for Socialists.)

Anyway, just thought I'd mention that. Capitalism.org, and Ayn Rand's book "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" contain the most potent arguments for conventional capitalism.

posted 27 June 2001 12:27 PM
Took a look at capitalism.org, and I liked it a lot. But I had quite a few problems with it as well. I guess that's a symptom of being such a centrist.

It doesn't address how those with more money are better equipped to promote their own ideas than those with less money. It has a zealous optimism towards the ability of the individual to see through the slick marketing of lies. I don't think I have that much faith in people to see through advertising.

The site was really tempting me until the section about the environment. According to the site, if a corporation pollutes your land you have the right to sue the corporation. But the corporation has far more money to spend on lawyers than the individual does.

What if a corporation pollutes government land (according to the site, there is no such thing as public land), and the corporation pays the government off to avoid prosecution? Does that not have an adverse effect on the citizenry? The authors of the site might argue that the citizenry can vote the government out of office, but what if the pollution is hidden, or it's prohibitively difficult to prove the source of the pollution, or the corporation is so skilled at public relations that they can convince the citizenry that pollution is actually good for you.

The site, by focusing on private property, ignores that the environment is a huge, interconnected system. Someone who chops down all the trees on his/her private land is causing a loss of oxygen for everybody else. Each individual is expected to sue the logger for their share of lost oxygen? How do you quantify the damages owed to each individual?

[ June 27, 2001: Message edited by: mediaboy ]

[ June 27, 2001: Message edited by: mediaboy ]

From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 27 June 2001 04:16 PM
I went to capitalist.org by accident, and was wondering why it was put forward as a right-wing viewpoint. Then I realized my mistake and went to capitalism.org. But do check out capitalist.org because it's interesting. Preaching to the choir, of course, but interesting nonetheless.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

Jared
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 803

posted 27 June 2001 06:07 PM
I really tried hard on several occasions to play this game, but it's just too difficult. Every time I venture forth with a few sentences, I have this giddy image of David Frum clapping me on the shoulder with congratulations on a job well done. And that's just gross.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged

stile
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 659

posted 27 June 2001 08:49 PM
Thnaks, Ian, for the link to capitalism.org.

It really is a good site.

I must admit, I was surprised by how anti-government the site is.

Quotes like these have given me a fresh perspective on capitalism:

quote: Since the act of taking drugs does not violate the rights of others, no drug is prohibited under capitalism.

posted 27 June 2001 09:05 PM
stile, in general libertarians (particularly in the USA) tend to be associated with the Ayn Rand-type extreme right where they think anyone to the left of them by a smidgen is an outright Communist.

I think it's for this reason that leftists of that bent usually prefer to term themselves as "anarchists" or "anarcho-syndicalists" (if I have my more obscure terminology correct).

From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

stile
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 659

posted 27 June 2001 09:11 PM
Hmmm, OK. I was thinking of that political compass in another thread. Most of us lefties also tended to be more on the libertarian side of the spectrum as well.

Also, when I think of the right, I am reminded of the Alliance Party, with its big, heavy, self-serving moral glove on, ready to smack in the face of all the pot-smoking, tree-hugging, neo-pagan hippies.

posted 28 June 2001 10:07 AM
Not if they want a good supply of useful employees they won't.
From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 28 June 2001 01:23 PM
Nothing could be so disturbing to read about while I have my morning coffee and cigarette than the scourge of drugs.

We have to just say no. And, there must be zero tollerance. I know there's a lot of pressure to legalize, or even decriminalize marijuana, but what people fail to realize is that it's a gateway drug. It leads to crack and heroin use later in life.

Surely, you don't want your kids using crack cocaine or herion do you? You see how vitally important it is to keep marijuana and all drugs illegal.

If they were not illegal, then people would be using them all the time and then were would we be? I had this argument a few nights ago with this woman at a bar. She got quite upset over the whole thing thinking people should have the right to do what they want. But, after a few drinks she understood that she was perhaps a little too on edge lately as her perscription to prozac had run out.

So, remember kids. Marijuana is one of those gateway drugs we must maintain a zero tollerance stance on.

"WE must maintain a zero tolerance a zero tolerance stance on" This statement is inferior, you said "maintain' a zero tolerance policy on,I was recently busted with a half ounce of high powered ganja and they just told my parents I am 18 and old enough to be charged as an adult,hardly zero tolerance,Don't know what you are talking about.Although it may seem logical that is they were decriminalized more people would be using them it is not exactly true and only speculation

posted 28 June 2001 02:29 PM
If marijuana is a gateway drug then so is sugar. I'll bet 100% of all cocaine addicts have used sugar at one point or another in their lives.
From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 28 June 2001 02:51 PM
I have an honest question here.

Marijuana today (BC Bud) really can't be compared to the weak stuff smoked 15 years ago. How much stronger does the stuff have to get before we treat it differently.

Its kind of like we can cell 40% alcohol in booze but we discourage people from drinking grain alcohol.

I'm not trying to make a point. Should you be able to smoke and drive, or do we have to equip police with marijuana detectors. I don't think the problem is marijuana, I think the problem is that it would be too costly to put the same controls on it that we have on alcohol.

THen why shouldn't the cost of each joint be made up of the cost of growing, and rolling it plus 85% taxes. I figure that would put the cost of a joint at about $10.00. Not too attractive at that cost, is it?

If you say no to taxes and gov't control then you would be the ones denying our social programs money. We should then cut the taxes on alcohol and tobacco and cut these funds from social services as well

posted 28 June 2001 02:55 PM
Alcohol has a much higher toxicity level than marijuana. Even at today's strengths, it is virtually impossible to overdose on marijuana. It is very easy to overdose on alcohol. In fact, it is easier to overdose on water than it is to overdose on marijuana. There are cases every year of people overdosing on water, but there is not one recorded case of anyone ever overdosing on marijuana.

From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 28 June 2001 03:11 PM
Fine you can't overdose on it, but should you drive on it. Have you even tried to figure the costs to enforce driving while high, at least now they just get you for possession they don't need special breathalyzers.

It's not the gov't you'll be fighting, The people over at MADD will want to have a word with you and believe me, they're not as reasonable as the me or others you argue with. I'm already scared for you.

Also remember there are no controls on marijuana, can you guarantee what type of fertilizer was used to grow it. Theres no filter on a joint. etc... There are health hazards, but I agree they are no more than tobacco or alcohol. But they are enough for people to sue the people who sell it.

Remember if it is legalized it will have to be regulated. You will have to put filters on it. Just like I can't operate my own still you won't be able to grow your own plants.

The companies who sell it will be subject to lawsuits from any wacko that says he was harmed by it. Oh, and yes then they'll advertise and put that into the cost of a joint.

The price of a joint will be over $10.00. would you still smoke it if it costed that much?

The problem is that your argument for legalization of marijuana is misleading through its ommissions.

Not only do you want it legalized, you want it unregulated, untaxed and no controls on it. Thats a whole new argument. If you get that then Alcohol and tobacco should get the same treatment. Why not?

That would probably make many alcohol and tobacco users convert to it. We would lose all of that revenue and you can explain to the homeless or sick how its still the big bad corporations fault that they have no money for their problems.

posted 28 June 2001 03:18 PM
Go through what I've written and show me where I argued for legalization. I merely pointed out the flaws in the "gateway drug" theory and the "increased potency" theory. I've never written that I'm in favour or full legalization or unregulation. Kindly do not put words in my mouth.

[ June 28, 2001: Message edited by: mediaboy ]

But since you brought up these points:

1) There is little evidence linking marijuana use to highway accidents. Of all the accidents in which marijuana was in the bloodstream of the driver, alhohol was also in the bloodstream. While I'd be uneasy about marijuana-using drivers, there has to be sufficient evidence to make it illegal. MADD could protest as much as they want, but they'd have to put forward sufficient evidence that marijuana is a significant factor in highway accidents.

2) Why would there HAVE to be a filter on a marijuana joint? While there are carcinogens in smoked marijuana, the amounts of marijuana smoke inhaled are miniscule compared to the amount of smoke inhaled by the average tobacco smoker. IF high cancer rates were found in marijuana-using, non-tobacco-using smokers, than we could argue for filters. Moreover, there are many ways to consume marijuana which greatly reduces the amount of carcinogens inhaled (water-pipes and bongs) and elimates the amount of carginogens ingested (hash brownies, etc.)

3) People can sue, but they have to show a reasonable link between their adverse health and their marijuana consumption. There is virtually no evidence that marijuana consumption adversely effects a person's health.

4) Marijuana is so easy to grow, I don't see why you think it would become so prohibitively expensive to purchase. Right now, per ounce, illegal marijuana costs more than gold. Why would legalization make the price go UP? Right NOW a good joint can cost you more than $10, and people do indeed pay that price.

5) Again, I never wrote that marijuana should be unregulated or untaxed. On the contrary, one of the problems with keeping it illegal is that we have no control over what goes in it. Better to legalize it and be able to monitor producers. It is true that I trust my local drug-dealer more than I trust Philip Morris, so I might give you that one.

On the other hand, if it WAS unregulated, the market would surely decide which suppliers are honourable. The marijuana-using community would most certainly monitor any product that comes out of any large corporate. If the product is found to contain pesticides you'd better believe it wouldn't be a secret for very long. Like alcohol, where you have large producers and micro-breweries, you'd have large producers of cheap weed, and micro-growers. You really can grow the stuff on the hood of a Dodge.

Your whole argument was full of straw-men. Or are we still playing the role-reversal game? I'm confused.

[ June 28, 2001: Message edited by: mediaboy ]

Oh, and in case Big Brother is reading this, I've never smoked a joint in my life. Really. Nope. Never ever. Bleah. Icky.

[ June 28, 2001: Message edited by: mediaboy ]

From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826

posted 28 June 2001 04:42 PM
Is there any happy medium?

I'm actually serious now.

I work for a "rightwing" party, but I have many views all over the place.

I frankly DO think there is a problem with over-hyped political correctness. You shouldn't be able to say the "wrong" thing. If viewers/readers/listeners take issue with what someone said, fine, they can make up their own minds about it. But, you can't force people to think or speak a certain way. It's exactly what Orwell was warning us about. It IS Newspeak, and it is causing a backlash. We can't have our language homogenized, that would be tragic.

I DO think that we have gone way too far with hate crimes and human rights tribunals.

Do any of you actually support the notion that the South African Human Rights Tribunal is considering charging Mel Lastman with a "Hate Crime" for the idiotic comment he made? You should be prosecuted for what you DO, never for what you THINK or SAY... that my friends, is wrong. It's what started the Civil Rights movement -freedoms-, and now it seems it's swung all the way around and is hitting us in the ass.

I'm really struggling.

I have serious concerns about the capitalist system, I am really worried about globalization, and my biggest concern by far is the Environment.

No, I don't think everything should be tossed to winds of the free-market, far from it.

BUT. I also am not a fan of the Government funding/controlling everything either. And no, I don't think our hand-out social welfare state is the answer. Why? Because it isn't working. Poverty and homelessness are at all-time highs.

I think the huge ministries and bureaucracies need to be totally dismantled. We need to bring aid back down to the community level. We need to allow for larger tax credits for individuals to donate to charitable organizations. We need to encourage volunteerism, we need to make eachother neighbours again.

The institutions run by governments aren't working. Faith-based charities really do work, because they listen to those in need, do-so voluntarily and WANT to help.

Religion encourages people to help the poor and underpriviledged, to give of one's self... why not allow that to happen? They are the best providers of care, they have a proven track record.... monitor them, yes, because corruption can happen everywhere.... but we need to let them do the work that they want to, and we need to encourage others to help-out.

I'm sorry, I just read the first page of the thread and hadn't realized that the topic had changed.

Mediaboy I'm with you. Actually, I'm past you. It should be totally legal. I can't believe there is opposition to this plant on this site. Now I've seen everything.

Argueing the costs of pot-detectors for road-side cop checks? Are you serious? Do you have any clue how much we would save in policing, and court costs if we just took this off of the books? Hundreds of Millions of dollars. That's not including the amount of tax dollars that could be made if we sold it in stores like alcohol.

And, to further enrage you, do you know there are a miniscule amount of accidents caused by weed? The biggest problem in an extensive European study was that people drove too slowly and hugged the shoulder... not big traffic problems. And furthermore, most stoned people don't want to drive. They want to paint, philosiphize (sp?), listen to music, remember thier childhood and eat chips.

This is a totally stupid arguement. It is not a gateway drug. I agree with mediaboy. Sugar and caffeine and oxygen are all gateway drugs too then.

posted 28 June 2001 05:08 PM
Oh, I cannot truly argue for full legalization. Full legalization at this time would be disastrous for Canada, but not for any of the reasons Markbo cites.

Imagine that Canada were to legalize pot, but the United States does not abandon their fanatical anti-marijuana stance. Do you really think the US would just stand back and say, "oh well"?

No way Josť. Overnight, it would become INCREDIBLY more difficult to cross the world's longest undefended border. The US would beef up security at the border like you wouldn't believe. After all, there would be countless American drug-dealers popping up here to buy cheap, legal marijuana and then trying to smuggle it back to the US. Remember what happened when Canada raised the tobacco taxes?

Also, Canada would suddenly become a magnet for every American pot smoker to come on vacation. Maybe I'm being somewhat bigoted here, but I don't really think I want American drug-tourists invading my country. In Amsterdam, while the numbers of Dutch drug-users has decreased since the decriminalization of pot, the amount of drug-tourism has sky-rocketed. And not everybody is too pleased about the conduct of the tourists.

Nope, unless attitudes in the USA are more in-line with attitutes in Canada, we cannot legalize it fully.

From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 28 June 2001 05:32 PM
I think we should treat it like Alcohol. You can buy it, use it, make your own in certain cases, but you shouldn't be able to crive with it, or be high in public places (there are laws against public drunkenness aren't there? ). Another problem no one has mentioned is that we'd have Americans coming across the border in droves to get high. Now, maybe I'm not being fair to Americans, but I don't think I like that idea. You may think I'm not being fair, but when I volunteered at the immigration office (on the border between SSM Ontario and SSM Michigan) Every American that came into the office (out of over 20, it's been a while, I forget) had a DUI (driving under the influence conviction. except for one nice elderly couple, they were nice). I asked the immigration officer if it was normally like this, if most of the Americans that came in did have DUI's, he said "*chuckle* Every American and their grandmother have a DUI". In case you didn't notice by now, though my message is factual, I'm kind of just kidding about the implication that we should be careful with the Americans coming across the border, however, you must admit, it could become a problem. We already have 18-20 year olds coming across the border to get drunk legally (drinking age is 21 down south). One final point, you shouldn't be able to smoke pot until you're 18, like alcohol. And no, I am not playing the role switching game right now.
From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 28 June 2001 05:33 PM
Hehe. I was a little too quick for ya there, wasn't I? I mentioned the drug tourists in the post right up above yours.

[ June 28, 2001: Message edited by: mediaboy ]

From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 June 2001 05:48 PM
I agree with mediaboy and Trinitty about decriminalization of pot. It's not a moral issue, people should be able to use it the way they do tobacco and alcohol.

But I do have one comment I want to respond to:

quote:Religion encourages people to help the poor and underpriviledged, to give of one's self... why not allow that to happen?

Yes, I'm sure that kids from religious boarding schools really appreciated that "part of themselves" that the priests and teachers gave them.

Not only that, but you're forgetting what the primary mandate of religious organizations is (at least for churches) - to worship God and to convert people to their religion. Each church has different ideas about the "social gospel". Some churches figure their first mandate is to preach, then help. Others feel that it is to fill up the tummies of the poor so they can pay better attention to the preaching. Either way, you can see the problem someone might have in going to a religious institution for help when it is not their religion, or if they are an athiest.

You can bet that if all the social programs were dismantled, and it were just left up to religious organizations to dole out food and money they get through private donations as they see fit, they are going to reserve the right to push their agenda on people who are not in a position to contradict them. Some might argue that churches would not push their religion if funded by the state to provide programs. Fine. If religious people (and I consider myself one of them so don't take this as an anti-church rant) want to "give of themselves" so badly, then they can sign up in droves at the local food banks and other secular charitable organizations that are not pushing a particular religious agenda.

Also, there are already lots of church-funded programs - every church I have ever gone to sponsors at least one - and there still isn't enough to go around. What makes you think there would be any more if state programs were dismantled? If your theory was sound, we should already have seen a huge increase in donations to church help-for-the-needy programs in Ontario due to supposedly huge income tax cuts and paring down of social programs. But that certainly hasn't happened here in Kingston, either at my church or the interfaith agencies like the local food bank, or the Salvation Army.

[ June 28, 2001: Message edited by: Michelle ]

From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 28 June 2001 06:26 PM
Under Bush's plan, people would go to the religious organization they belong to, but what about atheists? or agnostics? Are they so unholy that we should let them die on the streets? Now, that probably won't happen, since many religions (Sikhism, some branches of christianity and Judaism, etc.) put an emphasis on helping everyone regardless of their agreement or disagreement with their faith. However what if their's only one religious organization in their town? Anyway, I've kind of strayed from my original point, which was that system is flawed and unjust.
From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 June 2001 07:16 PM
Okay, so let's talk about Bush's idea realistically in a town the size of mine, Kingston. Relatively small city with lots of different religions and denominations within those religions. (I almost typed demoninations ).

Do we run a food bank, AND a welfare service, AND a homeless shelter, AND a battered women's shelter, AND a counselling service, AND countless other services in every denomination? After all, there are some Baptists at my church (me NOT included) who are convinced that Catholics are "unsaved" (as there are probably one or two Catholics who think we are unsaved too), so we couldn't just have each church host one type of service and have the Christians in town make the rounds. If the only food bank in town were run by the Baptist church, do we expose a poor Catholic to Baptist theology? Or vice versa? Or should people from mainstream Christian churches be forced to go to Kingdom Halls or Mormon churches for help if they are the only ones who offer certain services? After all, both of those churches believe mainstream Christian theology is completely wrong - and many mainstream Christian churches believe the Mormans and Jehovah's Witnesses are cults.

The local mosque is way out north of the 401 up a country road accessible only by car. Assuming that the small Muslim community in Kingston could support all of those services out of their mosque, the poor people they serve would not be able to access it.

The only way to make sure people can find help within their own denomination is to ensure that every religious organization has every single service now funded by government. Can you imagine how people would scream about duplication of services and bureaucracies if we were to do that? And rightfully so. Keeping services secular and state-run keeps out the religious agenda AND keeps the services centralized and fair to everyone. It also avoids forced religious segregation. People who attend religious organizations already have the option of getting extra financial support from their churches (most have a benevolent fund of some kind).

From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

My actual views are much different. Simply, the onus of proof lies with the person making the claim. Obviously, the government must be claiming some kind of harm from marijuana, more serious than alcohol or tobacco for it to be treated criminally and not regulated.

Therefore, the onus is on the government to explain why marijuana is so dangerous or harmful, that to even have some, or grow some, should make one a criminal.

To date the government has not at any time provided such substantiation of their claims.

So, the law, as it currently exists, is an affront to liberty and any reasoned person who values liberty would not abide by it, nor enforce it.

I'm a legalizer. I believe every drug out there should be legalized, regulated, and sold only to those over the age of majority, preferably by the government.

However, I hold no truck with those who would relax laws prohibiting public intoxication, or which prohibit operation of a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant. If you're that stupid that you'll dose up on dope/crack/whatever before you get behind the wheel of a car, you deserve whatever car accident(s) you get into.

But let me reiterate: What a person does with his or her body in the privacy of his or her own home is None. Of. My. Fucking. Business. as long as it harms no one else.

From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826

posted 29 June 2001 11:29 AM
Good discussion here!

Mediaboy, I totally agree with you. I think we SHOULD legalize it, but I do realize that we CAN'T right now. That really jerks my chain. We shouldn't be dictated to by the US, but it's been happening for over 30 years, so people just assume that's the way we must run our lives. Frankly, I wouldn't mind extra security checks at the border. We are a sovereign (sp) country. Maybe it would keep our doctors here! LOLOLOL! JK.I dunno. It could be controlled exactly like alcohol. You should be allowed to grow a certain number of plants for personal use, that way you wouldn't have to worry about what's in/on it. But you would still get plenty buying it in government stores. Tomatoes are easy to grow too, but most people still buy them.

Michelle: I realize that we couldn't totally wipe-out all government aid offices right-off the bat. They do have some good points, but I just feel it has become too much of a business.

It would have to be a long transition process if at all. And, I realise that those who don't believe in a God need aid too, in my idea, there would be plenty of multi-faith programs that wouldn't "push" religion. I personally have yet to meet an atheist (sp) that has a burning desire to help humanity, but I'm sure they exist, and if they actually want to help those less fortunate, that's great, there could be "God-free" facilities. There are those today. And hopefully we could create and inspire more.

These groups could all work hand-in-hand with trained proffessional councellors, etc...

And yes, many many believers volunteer thier time at soup kitchens and help the homeless in non-secular ways. It's the teachings from whatever faith they belong to that has helped them shape thier desire to help.

I think the "filling thier bellies so they can pay better attention" is a terribly cynical attitude that perpetuates the distrust many people have with the secular left. Of course, believers in any faith would like to "save" the homeless, but if they feed them, clothe them and give them a place to stay... and maybe, gasp, say "God loves you" is that so horrible? People can make-up thier own minds on faith.

Of course there are those that have gone to religious schools that have been treated terribly, but is it really fair to tar all Christians, all Jews, all Sikhs with the same brush? Plenty of pedophiles are Agnostic Virgos, do they all do the same thing? Of course not.

I think we should utilize the resources that are there naturally, and encourage them to grow. Helping the "down trodden" is the base of a majority of religions. Lets accept it and use it to it's fullest.

Meades: was that an accident that you capitalized all religions other than Christianity?

posted 29 June 2001 01:27 PM
As an atheist, I willingly state that my suspicions lead me to wonder about the motivations of some "faith-based" groups which ostensibly exist to aid their fellow human beings.

If we're going to start another round of the "welfare creates dependency" bit, I'll just get my oar in first by saying that I vastly prefer dependence to a secular authority that does not derive the basis for that authority on religious faith, as opposed to dependence on a god or religion as a crutch for everyday life.

From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 29 June 2001 02:05 PM
Last off topic post

To say that it is ok to smoke a big fatty and get behind the wheel of a car is OK scares the hell out of me

IF you think there will be no loss in gov't revenues from legalizing Marijuana without heavy taxation. Then you'll be the one denying our social programs of money. Not the corporations. Even if you brew your own alcohol, you are still heavily taxed.

posted 29 June 2001 02:44 PM
DrC, the reason why pot will never be legalized is Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam is throwing a shit fit now that there is an all-party committee studying it. Why? Because there are people making lots of money from the drug war, and they are rather influential on Capitol Hill. Then there's the American moral argument.

Someone remind me, what is the moral argument against using pot? Speaking as someone who has never (yep, never) tried and never wanted to, I don't really see what the big problem is.

I think the scary attitudes behind the whole thing were revealed to me once in a headline that said: scientists isolate pain-killing element of cannabis: this will kill pain without giving the patient a sense of euphoria. WHAT THE FUCK? We don't want the terminally ill patient to have a sense of euphoria? Is this SICK or what?

posted 29 June 2001 02:53 PM
Yeah, I know the US throws fits about countries that don't follow the moralistic holier-than-thou argument about banning drugs forever. It's kind of ironic - I was reading the Province one day, and two articles on the same page showed the divergent attitudes of Canada and the US.

The article on Canadian drug policy was in regard to Allan Rock's committee/road show to gather data before going back to the Commons to table legislation.

The article on US drug policy revolved around luminaries in the USA calling for more drug law enforcement and more of the same old futile crap.

From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 29 June 2001 03:01 PM
This is one area where you can imagine the benefits that deeper democracy would bring -- it's easy to browbeat the Canadian government in private, through diplomatic channels, it's hard when there's a referendum to do the same thing. What do you do, buy ads threatening the Canadian public? Hmmm I wonder how we'd respond to that.
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

stile
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 659

posted 29 June 2001 03:04 PM
The one reason we could get away with legalizing pot and still maintain trade with the US: energy.

posted 29 June 2001 04:01 PM
odly enough, they always bitch about them too! What's with them? Can they not see a good deal (for them, not us) when it's right in their faces?! Pat Buchanan is a real shithead! Oh, and the GOP too. and the democrats. and the entire congressional system they have. and the constitution party. and......
From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 29 June 2001 04:13 PM
Well stile, supposin' some leftists were to gain power in Canada, plunging the nation into a law and order crisis which would also create a legitimation crisis? Wouldn't the good people of Canada welcome their American cousins with open arms? What Canadians really want is order. Why they'd be doing us a favour, in grand old American style. Don't you agree?
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 29 June 2001 06:22 PM
Well I don't think the leftists would make a crisis. Sure the right wing opposition would bitch, but what could they do? really, what could they do? That is, if we had a majority . We would probably change a lot of the laws, but I don't thinka crisis would follow. Canadians may very well like order, but they also hate Americans , so it's hard to say who's side they'd take
From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

stile
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 659

posted 29 June 2001 08:10 PM
I think our friendly Raven was in character there meades.

He has subtly hit upon a frightening truth.There are indeed many people in this country who would gladly open their arms to the Southern Eagle.

Why not? Lower taxes, stricter law enforcement, the strongest military arm in the world, a right-wing puppet president?

posted 29 June 2001 10:52 PM
I think we have a pretty good unspoken deal going with our southern neighbours. They make fun of us and we look down on them. The results speak for themselves: world's longest undefended border.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged

posted 05 July 2001 02:30 AM
I've been doing a little research on manifest destiny.

I found this in a student newspaper published 1995 in Oklahoma:

quote: It's time those defiant little Canadians laid down those supposedly benign "hockey sticks" - which I personally believe to be "insidiously-disguised hook-weapons of American death" - and bow to the might of the American Empire.

Plunder is good for an economy, as are the extra taxes a conqueror can impose on people for the privilege of being conquered. Even from a piddly nation like Canada, we could get a whole wad of VCRs, televisions, computers, and various other home electronics. Added land, petroleum reserves, and more caribou than you can shake a stick at - and these are just the start of the natural resources we'd gain.

I think it would be an act of civic duty to, every few years, dig out the old Social Studies textbooks we used to use, and re-read them, with particular emphasis on Canada's relations with the USA, 1776 - present.

From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 05 July 2001 02:51 AM
Why is it that we are so close to the only nation that ever invaded our boundaries? I mean, you would think the first time they invaded us, we would have learned, or the sencond time, or the third. But aparently not. 87% of our exports go there, most of which aren't faulty! We're in several economic and military alliances with them. It just doesn't make sense! They're the only nation who would even thought of invading Canada! When was the last time you heard threats of attacks against Canadian borders? if it wasn't during any of the world wars, was it an American who uttered them? more likely than not. I say we start building defence mechanisms into those 87% of the exports that go there, so that when they get uppity, an immense wave of faulty tires causes accidents across the US! We can give the remote control to the government, who should use it when the yankees get upity.

Just so you know, this was meant to be humourous, though, I think our relations with the Americans are too close, and we should lean toward Europe more. diplomatically, economically, and socially, and militarily since it can't be done geographically

posted 05 July 2001 03:08 AM
DrC, did you use Manifest Destiny in high school too? Good book, eh?
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

stile
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 659

posted 05 July 2001 03:13 AM
The FTAA is clearly a modern version of manifest destiny.

I can understand why the USA wants it. But why would our own politicians and business men want to sell out like that? Are they simply trying to line their pockets or do they really believe Canada could benefit from economic union?

Geez, did this thread disintegrate, or what? Let's get a li'l spine back here:

quote:supposin' some leftists were to gain power in Canada, plunging the nation into a law and order crisis which would also create a legitimation crisis? Wouldn't the good people of Canada welcome their American cousins with open arms? What Canadians really want is order. Why they'd be doing us a favour, in grand old American style. Don't you agree?

Is that not the question? Brothers and sisters, I ask you, is that not the question?

posted 03 July 2003 04:55 AM
Perhaps I could bring a different perspective on some of the earlier attempts of impersonating right wingers...

Most of you have not done a very good job, but rather have taken the most illogical right-wing position possible, and thus defeated the purpose of trying to walk in someone else's shoes.

But this

quote:The problem with you leftists is that you're well-intentioned but you don't understand the realities of the world. Trying to create a utopia through handouts, which make a culture of dependency, or through social engineering projects, has unforeseen consequences which usually make the situation worse. Whenever we've seen this sort of utopian project tried, the result has always been suffering -- look at the Soviet Union. The only efficient way to allocate resources is the market, and the less you interfere with it the better

Nowhere are the bad effects of leftists' good intentions clearer than in the anti-globalization movement. A few special interests and flat-earthers want to protect their overpaid jobs at home, the main result of which is to keep millions of people in the developing world poor. But free trade is a win-win scenario for everyone. We get lower prices and greater choice, and developing countries get the investment they need to lift them out of poverty -- which is more than all your bleeding-heart handouts have done. The truth is that trade promotes growth. Hong Kong is a classic example. It's got the freest economy in the world, and look how it has prospered relative to its neighbours.

Capitalism of course has its losers, but so does socialism. The point is that even if there is inequality in capitalism, the worst off are always better off than they would have been in a socialist economy. And if our economic system was so bad, why would people be clamoring to come here from all over the world?

is a perfect 10 in that department. I actually like it. and the other ones too. rasmus would actually make a half-decent right winger.

DrConway's first one was also pretty good, but his second one is a bit lacking as not all right wingers are that cold-hearted.

In general, most people took positions which are too extreme to have merit.

posted 03 July 2003 08:20 PM
Hey, how did these best of threads become unlocked? It's over a hundred posts though, so...
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged